Static Main Menu

International Morality: Role of International Morality in International Politics

Article shared by :

ADVERTISEMENTS:

International Morality consists of moral principles which are endorsed by a number of nations. The rules of customary International Law reflect International Morality. One of the major sources and sanctions of International Law has been International Morality.

International Morality acts as a factor or limitation of international relations. It acts as a limitation on National Power. But at the same time it can enable a nation to project and justify its policies as policies based on moral principles. As such, it is essential for us to examine the nature of International Morality in international relations.

Human behaviour in society is regulated by moral and legal norms which are the basis of order in society. These impose duties on each man to respect the rights of others and hence enlarge the freedom of all. Moral norms are based upon social sanctions, whereas legal norms are based upon the sanctions of force. Together these perform the function of regulating human behaviour in the interest of social good.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Likewise, in the international community, the behaviour of states is regulated by International Law and International Morality, the former as the legal code and the letter as the moral code. Both these codes constitute important and valuable limitations on the national power of each state and, as such, perform the essential function of maintaining order in international relations.

Since rules of International Law do not enjoy the sanctions of force, these are quite near to International Morality. In fact, International Morality (Customs, General Principles of State Behaviour, and International Comity, as parts of International Morality), has been an important source of International Law.

Is There An International Morality?

Three Different Views regarding the existence International Morality.

(1) Denial of Existence of a International Morality:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The absence of a universally accepted, perfect and absolute standard of right and wrong in international relations has been responsible for giving rise to the view that there exists no international moral code of behaviour.

(2) Personal Codes as International Moral Standards:

The above view, however, does not find favour with many scholars who advocate that there exists, howsoever weak, a moral code of international behaviour. They advocate that the moral standards that guide humans in their personal behaviour also apply with equal force in group relations, including those between states, international organisations, and independent people.

(3) A ‘Double Standard’ of Morals:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Even the view of the existence of an international moral code is challenged by some scholars who, while accepting the existence of an international moral code, deny that it is of the same kind as the moral code of any group of individuals or state. Such scholars argue that inter-group norms are generally different from inter-personal ones, and that the former are considerably less demanding.

After analyzing these three views, Schleicher holds that, there definitely exists an international moral code, although it is not as perfect as the moral codes of various societies. In International relations morality exists, just as International Law exists.

What is International Morality?

International Morality consists of moral principles which are endorsed by a number of nations. The rules of customary International Law reflect International Morality. One of the major sources and sanctions of International Law has been International Morality.

The Charter of the United Nations reflects International Morality in many of its provisions, for example, in calling for respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination as to race, sex, language or religion. The moral desirability of peace is formally affirmed almost universally, though with provisions and conditions attached. War is now recognized as immoral and even when it has to be resorted to, the nations accept and follow limits on methods of waging it.” Thus there exists an international code of moral values which is popularly called International Morality.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The Sanctions behind International Morality:

Two main sanctions behind International Morality:

(i) Domestic Public Opinion, and

(ii) World Public Opinion.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(i) Domestic Public Opinion:

Foreign policy decision- makers observe rules of International Morality because of their own conscience, as well as because of the sanctions of domestic public opinion. The objective of working for the securing of a stable and peaceful world is again motivated by the force of conscience and domestic public opinion.

(ii) World Public Opinion:

The force of world public opinion as a sanction behind International Morality must also be recognized by all. “Otherwise why would nations be so concerned with the ‘image’ they present to the world, and why should these always attempt to justify their actions within and outside the forums of the U.N.

The capacity of a nation to carry out its wishes in international relations depends upon consent as well as power, and that the more it has of the former, the less need there is for the latter. “Nations always try to make their policies acceptable to world public opinion. Each nation is keen to show ‘decent respect for the opinions of mankind’ and hence is always willing to accept and follow the rules of International Morality.”

Role of International Morality in International Politics:

International Morality is a factor which influences the role of international decision makers and acts as a limiting factor of national power. For a student of International Politics, it is essential to analyze the actual role that International Morality plays in international relations.

Three Dimensions of Role of International Morality:

(1) Protection of Human Life in Peace

(2) Protection of Human Life in War

(3) Moral Condemnation of War.

(1) Protection of Human Life in Peace:

International Politics can be defined as a process of continuous efforts for maintaining and increasing the power of one’s own nation and for keeping in check or reducing the power of other nations. Previously, nations could adopt any method for securing this objective. They could use mass or selected killings as a means.

But today, under the pressure of International Morality, no nation can resort to such means. Gone are the days when men like Hitler and Mussolini could use immoral methods for achieving political ends. Now moral limitations act as strong barriers against immoral means. Respect for human life is now a sacred principle of international living.

(2) Protection of Human Life in War:

Even during a war, nations continue to respect the right to life of the civilians and non-combatants. Gone are the days when belligerents were considered to be free to kill all enemies, whether or not they were members of the armed forces, or else to treat them in any way they deemed fit? Now moral restraints prevent them from undertaking senseless and brutal killings.

Since the mid-19th century, the conception has become prevalent that war is not a contest between whole population, but only between the armies of the belligerent states. In consequence, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants has become one of the fundamental legal and moral principles governing the actions of belligerents.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is now considered a moral and legal duty not to attack, wound, or kill non-combatant civilians purposely. The Hague Conventions with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949, gave definite and virtually universal legal sanction to this principle.

The Geneva Convention of 1864 as superseded by the conventions of 1906, 1929 and 1949, have legalized the previously held moral conventions calling for humanitarian treatment of the prisoners of war. The International Red Cross is both the symbol and the outstanding institutional realization of international moral convictions. The attempts at the humanization of warfare have their roots in International Morality.

(3) Moral Condemnation of War:

Finally, since 1945, the attitude towards war itself has reflected an ever increasing awareness on the part of most statesmen that certain moral limitations definitely restrict the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy. Statesmen have decried the ravages of war and have justified their own participation in them in terms of self-defence or religious duty since the beginning of history.

The avoidance of war itself, became an aim of statecraft in late 19th century. The two Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the League of Nations of 1914, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and the United Nations, all have accepted the avoidance of war as an objective.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

At the foundations of these and other legal instruments and organisations, there is the conviction that war, especially a modern total war, is not only a terrible thing to be avoided for reasons of expediency, but also an evil thing to be shunned on moral grounds. The condemnation of war has become, a valued rule of international relations and this clearly reflects the role of morality in international relations.

Thus, International Morality plays an important role in international relations of our times. It has been acting as a limiting factor of national power. The realization towards the need for preserving international peace and for directing efforts towards the promotion of universal human welfare has increased the importance of morality in international relations.

Nations now oppose war as an immoral instrument of national policy. The growing demand for disarmament and arms control also has a strong basis in International Morality. Likewise, the increasing emphasis upon the securing of human rights and freedoms of all the people also derives strength from international moral obligations which civilized states are expected to carry out.